Fender - a new company model that would work

[hands5]

But I'd say that "cosmetic fluff" Is what is helping sell instruments. Personally, I would much rather have B&B to dots on a jazz. And I think this move to direct is a reflection of the times, not the specific brand. Despite the supposed economic recovery, many people still don't have the extra cash to spend on new instruments, and for many kids there isn't an iconic bassist for them to really look to. You figure that from the early 60s all the way till the 90s, people had bassists like McCartney, JPJ, Dee Dee Ramone, Jaco, and Flea to look up to, where recently, it seems that a lower percentage of people are picking up the Bass (or instruments in general). I did think your idea for the MIA stuff is a pretty good idea though. What fender could do is offer the standard 60's versions of their core models (Jazz, Precision, Mustang because I love them, and maybe the Jaguar since they already have them), and then charge extra for non-standard options. These options would obviously have to be limited, because otherwise the custom shop would take a hit. Then maybe you could offer Maple for an additional 50 bucks, have sunburst be a standard, make any other color be a 50-100 dollar upgrade (depending on amount of work, like metallics), and then have the deluxe option be an upgrade of a couple hundred dollars. In fact, just offer the blocks as a 150 dollar upgrade on the neck. Things that you would want to stay consistent, such as the radius, the nut width, and the bridge styling.

birdman14 I think Fender tried to do this in the late 90's by doing a few things that you've mention such as offering things like B&B , Maple Necks, Vintage tuners etc. for an additional upcharge and they didn't fair very well because it kinda created a conflict with the CS.

 

[blue4]

- All the hollowbodies require a whole different assembly line and functions.
- The more different bodies you have, you either have to purchase more stock, or change the lines.
- The more options you have, the less you can pre-make (or you have LOTS more inventory).

Remember, the idea is to make the parts, and have them ready to assemble - that is the beauty of bolt ons. The fewer the options the easier it is to have it ready to go, without doing each piece custom as the order comes in.

Which reduces orders which takes away all your savings from reducing options.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Which reduces orders which takes away all your savings from reducing options.

Which reduces orders from the lesser-ordered instruments. As I said before, take a look at the main boutique instrument makers (Sadowsky, Lull, etc) - what are they making mostly? P and J clones.

The idea is to maximize production/profit on profitable lines, and eliminate less profitable lines.

Go on the Fender website, and scroll through the basses - nothing but Ps and Js until page three, and no hollow-bodied instruments until page 7. What does that tell you?

 

[awilkie84]

- All the hollowbodies require a whole different assembly line and functions.
- The more different bodies you have, you either have to purchase more stock, or change the lines.
- The more options you have, the less you can pre-make (or you have LOTS more inventory).

Remember, the idea is to make the parts, and have them ready to assemble - that is the beauty of bolt ons. The fewer the options the easier it is to have it ready to go, without doing each piece custom as the order comes in.

That's why factories do runs of specific models & then ship them out to storage facilities or stores. You don't need to be making all the models at once. You do P-basses 1 month, Jazz the next, etc.

 

[awilkie84]

Which reduces orders from the lesser-ordered instruments. As I said before, take a look at the main boutique instrument makers (Sadowsky, Lull, etc) - what are they making mostly? P and J clones.

The idea is to maximize production/profit on profitable lines, and eliminate less profitable lines.

Go on the Fender website, and scroll through the basses - nothing but Ps and Js until page three, and no hollow-bodied instruments until page 7. What does that tell you?

The challenge isn't that Fender has lots of models. The challenge is that Fender chooses to label minor variations as their own models, instead of just having options within the models. It's just a sorting game.

I would also argue that Lull makes more T-bird clones than anything. Also, while his body shapes may be P & J, his pick-up options rarely are. He's also guilty of splitting everything into its own model, like Fender does.

 

[blue4]

Which reduces orders from the lesser-ordered instruments. As I said before, take a look at the main boutique instrument makers (Sadowsky, Lull, etc) - what are they making mostly? P and J clones.

The idea is to maximize production/profit on profitable lines, and eliminate less profitable lines.

Go on the Fender website, and scroll through the basses - nothing but Ps and Js until page three, and no hollow-bodied instruments until page 7. What does that tell you?

Sadowsky and Lull are small companies. They tend to focus on one thing. Comparing them to Fender is not really valid. Lets compare them to their contemporaries.

Gibson/Epiphone has hollow and semi hollow basses.
Ibanez the same.
Eastwood the same.
Hofner the same.
And so on.

You stop competing for that business, that customer goes to Ibanez. He finds out that "these are pretty nice." Next bass he buys, Ibanez gets his first look and probably his return business. And you've lost him, because you didn't want to run a few units of semis and hollows once a day for two shifts once every three months. Seems really, really counterproductive to me.

 

[hrodbert696]

As I've said, I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't think Fender's problem is too many models. They've discontinued models that weren't selling before, and presumably will continue to do so. All the call for "fewer models" is from the shopper's perspective, people who just want the bass THEY want and don't want to bother sifting through all the varieties. Which I assume is why Fender brands the core models as the "standard" and the "American standard..."

I do think the variety of models is partly due to the rise of companies like Lakland and Sadowsky and all. A customer wants a jazz bass, but they want it active. If Fender just offered the one standard jazz bass, this customer's options would be 1) buy it and mod it themselves (which many aren't comfortable doing), or 2) buy a jazz clone from another company. So Fender offers the Deluxe Active and the Marcus Miller to avoid losing that sale. Same goes for lots of other mods - I like a jazz body and neck but I want P/J pickups, I want a detuner on it... etc.

The other thing is that if you go to a site like MF and check it's "basses" page, as of today the list of "brands" tells you that there are 90 Fender models plus 22 custom shop and 1 starcaster models. Ibanez has 124, next in line is Schecter at 63, ESP at 53, Squier at 42, Dean 41, MusicMan 32. Everybody else has less than 30 and most less than 20. Now, I don't recall ever hearing that Ibanez has a big financial struggle because they have too many models. But I do think that there's an important "branding" issue when someone goes shopping online for a bass - especially non-TB members who don't know much about all these brands. That list (and how many times a brand name comes up as your scrolling through models) makes a big impression in terms of who the "big boys" are. You and I may know that Lakland or Godin make great instruments, but there's only seven Laklands and one Godin in there and the casual shopper will scroll right by them.

Businesses make mistakes, but in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary I think one should assume they do know their business. They know what's making money and what's costing money and any changes they make are an effort to deal with the actual problems they have. If Fender were losing money on the costs of too many models they'd be dropping models. If they're shaking up their dealer/distribution structure, it's because that's where they think they're either losing money or stand to gain money.

EDIT: Bulldog, a couple pages back you pointed out that a lot of other companies like Lull and Sadowsky make Fender clones, showing the popularity of the classic models. That's totally true, wasn't my point about the Dimension. My point was that there are SOME consumers who want "something different" and when Fender goes years without ever building "something different" it tarnishes the brand, makes it look like they don't have any new ideas. Again, the new model helps them tap a market share that would otherwise go to someone else.

 

[One Drop]

As someone who hasn't bought a Fender in about 10 years and can't see himself buying one in the future, perhaps it's worth exploring why people would consider alternative brands. For me, there's one big thing about Fender these days:

21st Century Fender are boring.

"New" products seem to be little more than jumbled selections of different instrument parts. A Jazz pickup on a Telecaster body is not exciting. A different shade of blue on an otherwise bog standard P bass is not exciting. Another pointless sig model for some third rate flavour of the month is not exciting. This is the company which revolutionised the industry. Now it's like a tired tribute band, playing the same old hits. They were great hits, the greatest of all, but pretty much everything good and the spirit of innovation left when CBS took over and it never came back. FMIC seem determined just to grind what they can out of 70 year old designs, banking on celebrity associations and that those 60's and 70's icons, who didn't have the options we have today, were photographed with a Fender in their hands. The Dimension was a conservative instrument they should have made 30 years ago. In 2014, are you really going to get in a flap over something like that? Contrast that with what Leo Fender went on to do after he left. Contrast what Fender do with the Jazz bass to what, say, Ibanez do with the SR. Pretty much every year they bring something new to that instrument, throughout the range. It continually evolves, the continually offer higher spec and more value for money, especially at the chaper end of the market. They attract new players with new technology and value for money. A lot of these new players will stay Ibanez players, you always have an special affinity with your first instrument. I mean, even compare what Fender Japan do compared to Fender's USA catalogue. It's just so dull and unimaginative. There's only so long you can flog a dying horse. Of course, this is my opinion only and some people will see what I call conservative as not deviating from a classic but, for me at least, I feel genuinely sad when I see the once great name which created the benchmark for electric instruments reduced to tired old rehashes and mix 'n' match non-entities. I have a great J bass and I have a great P bass, I don't need slightly different coloured ones too. Give me something genuinely new and exciting and I'll consider spending money but, until then, no chance.

Your last line says a lot- how many other brands do you know where it's likely that many others, like yourself, have already bought two instruments from?

Chances are you found a P and a J whose specs suited you- if Fender only had a limited choice of specs for their Ps and Js you and many others might have gone to competing brands that offer clones or their own versions.

I think Fender has to keep offering their iconic models in currently fashionable colours, and in a large if not ridiculously so variety of configurations.

Don't forget they have to appeal to new generations as well as seasoned players, students and teenagers as well as middle-aged weekend warriors and basement plunkers (no offense intended)

It is for the up and coming MI companies to find a niche and exploit it, and/or base their image and success on a limited and focused product line that appeals to a distinctly narrow customer profile.

Established market leaders have to satisfy a much broader market and must be seen to be respecting their history while at least appearing to innovate.

 

[buldog5151bass]

hrod - I would prefer them trying to come out with a fresh new model on occasion over them churning out these re-issues and cosmetic $!@#% signature models ANY day. I haven't tried the Dimension, but am building an axe now, and any further GAS would go to a better cabinet.

 

[MarkoYYZ]

All those re-issues and cosmetically changed sig models aren't the drain that you're painted them to be though. It has been explained by several people that these are all still just Ps and Js like you want them to focus on, they just have a couple of small variations in finish or trim which is a piece of cake for them to work into their production lines. They are already set up to do them all. Same bodies, same necks, same tuners and bridges and pickups - with the occasional changeover for colors, custom guards, etc... but the production lines don't have to change out all the tooling like an automaker does.

It's like Five Guys and their one burger, but offering your choice of toppings, condiments for your fries and a variety of drinks. Five Guys could make a list of all the variations that people order and have a menu with 100 different options, or they could take the 10 most popular orders and make them combos and give them a name or number - it's just different presentation to the consumer (ie: marketing).

 

[hrodbert696]

hrod - I would prefer them trying to come out with a fresh new model on occasion over them churning out these re-issues and cosmetic $!@#% signature models ANY day. I haven't tried the Dimension, but am building an axe now, and any further GAS would go to a better cabinet.

That's perfectly sensible. I'm not interested in 90 different models of Fender either. I'm not even particularly interested in the Dimension. But some people are.

If I WERE to buy another Fender, it would probably be a Reggie Hamilton (I have an MIM standard jazz now). Active/passive P/J pickups and a detuner - if I wanted that combination on a bass and don't like to mod myself, I'd have to buy a Carvin or something. By offering the Reggie Hamilton, Fender has another potential sale.

The point is that what you or I happen not to be interested in does not constitute a business mistake on Fender's part.

Earlier this year, Squier went and did what looked like a stupid cosmetic signature model - the Eva Gardiner P bass. Well... it's a P bass. With a graphic on it based on her tattoo. Seems pointless, right? She herself, in her interviews, talks about preferring traditional old-school bass gear. BUT... it happens to have a jazz neck on it, and costs $299. Now, go looking for another half-way decent P body/J neck bass out there for $300. It turns out, there aren't any at that price point - you have to go to a Carvin PB4 ($900 + options) or a Lakland Duck Dunn Skyline (around $1200 new). If that's what someone wants in a bass (and it's sure attractive to me), they've got another sale - just by mix-and-matching parts that they're cranking out in the factories anyway.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Difference is, mushrooms go on in a few seconds. Painting a body or headstock takes a while.

More important is getting rid of the extra lines/levels of basses, and the slow selling models.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Somehow I doubt Eva Gardner plays the same bass as you are buying off the shelf. There is a cost to having her name on the bass. As I said before, I have a sharpie, and can probably do it for less.

 

[MarkoYYZ]

Difference is, mushrooms go on in a few seconds. Painting a body or headstock takes a while.

But if they want to sell XX# of instruments to generate revenues, they still have to paint those bodies, wires the pickups, etc... They're not doing anything more than they wouldn't otherwise be doing - it just takes a bit of extra planning to schedule Sonic Blue paint every 3rd Mondays, or what have you.

 

[buldog5151bass]

But if they want to sell XX# of instruments to generate revenues, they still have to paint those bodies, wires the pickups, etc... They're not doing anything more than they wouldn't otherwise be doing - it just takes a bit of extra planning to schedule Sonic Blue paint every 3rd Mondays, or what have you.

More stock, more inventory, more money.

Buy as I said get rid of excess models and levels more important.

 

[hrodbert696]

Somehow I doubt Eva Gardner plays the same bass as you are buying off the shelf. There is a cost to having her name on the bass. As I said before, I have a sharpie, and can probably do it for less.

Of course she isn't. She's playing some 60s P that she put a jazz neck on. And I had no idea who she was until the sig bass came out and I looked her up (she plays for Pink). No doubt she gets some kind of kickback from the sig model, I don't know how much it is, but on a $300 bass it can't be all that much.

I suppose Squier (and Fender) could save some money by just offering the same specs without the signature. But probably another aspect to it is having something to publicize. It's like "loss leaders" at the grocery store - items they discount so much that they actually lose money on every one they sell. Why do the stores do it? Because it gives them some news to advertise, and that gets people in the store, where they then buy other things that the store profits on. The cost of adding a "signature" name to the bass probably does cost the company something in a royalty or whatever to the artist whose sig it is. But it also means that when the artist gets interviewed in a magazine or whatever, they say, "Oh, and I've been working with the Fender people on a great new signature bass..." and the company keeps its name in the public eye.

 

[CatSplat]

Somehow I doubt Eva Gardner plays the same bass as you are buying off the shelf. There is a cost to having her name on the bass. As I said before, I have a sharpie, and can probably do it for less.

I must say, I'd be pretty impressed to see you change a P neck into a J neck using nothing but a Sharpie.

 

[Doctor J]

Your last line says a lot- how many other brands do you know where it's likely that many others, like yourself, have already bought two instruments from?

Chances are you found a P and a J whose specs suited you- if Fender only had a limited choice of specs for their Ps and Js you and many others might have gone to competing brands that offer clones or their own versions.

I think Fender has to keep offering their iconic models in currently fashionable colours, and in a large if not ridiculously so variety of configurations.

Don't forget they have to appeal to new generations as well as seasoned players, students and teenagers as well as middle-aged weekend warriors and basement plunkers (no offense intended)

It is for the up and coming MI companies to find a niche and exploit it, and/or base their image and success on a limited and focused product line that appeals to a distinctly narrow customer profile.

Established market leaders have to satisfy a much broader market and must be seen to be respecting their history while at least appearing to innovate.

Actually, neither of them are Fenders. The J is an ESP, the P is a Bacchus. I've had Fenders, along with many other J and P types, high end and low end, but those are the two who were the cream of the crop. To be honest, if the Fenders were better instruments, they'd have stayed. I'd rather have a high quality instrument in a colour I don't like than all the options in the world on an instrument that doesn't cut it. There's no doubt that the designs of the 50's were strokes of unrestrained genius but, for me, there are so many people making those instruments to at least the standard of the MIA series and often for less money, that it would take more than a few colour or minor spec options to get me back as a customer. The Fender template is so common and it's so easy to mod every single part, I'd be more interested if the base spec was better than having countless pointless options. I appreciate there will always be a market for old style instruments, but Fender don't appear to innovate anymore. There's very, very little they've released in twenty years which isn't just a half-arsed repackaging of what they've already done. That's the problem for me. That name used to stand for so much more.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Tired of arguing. Take my opinion for what it is worth. Catsplat, you know what I was sayin'. There is a cost for a celebrity endorsement. And I think people who are that concerned with a slightly narrower neck are going to spend more than that on a bass.

Anyway, peace out - enjoy the discussing.

 

[peledog]

Too many models, too many product lines, too many gimmicks.

Will there be a Squier Junior series that's even cheaper?
MIA Deluxe Plus Series?
Modern Player American Series?
Blue Top Series?
Affinity Premium Series?
Vintage Custom Shop Active Deluxe series?
Pawn Shop Interpretation Retro-vibe Premium series?

You get the idea...